Ignorance is Not Bliss

Last week, the New York Times Science section ran a column that posed the question: What is more dangerous – al Qaeda or homeland security?

Pointing to a recent study about cardiac health problems caused by anxiety, columnist John Tierney suggested that continuing elevated threat levels – and changes in security measures – may spur anxiety-based heart damage that harms more people than al Qaeda.

I’ll admit that I began to read the article expecting at the end it would be tongue in cheek. But this didn’t turn out to be satire. The Times seems to feel that where terrorism is concerned ignorance is, if not bliss, at least tranquility.

Of course, there are a couple of quick points to be made. Contrary to Mr. Tierney’s assertion, the United States Government does not frequently change the alert level, and when we do we explain as fully as possible why.

I could also point out that the Times’ advice suggests that the newspaper itself may be a bigger cause of anxiety-related heart disease, what with the recent reporting about foiled terrorist plots in Spain and Germany, and, less happily, the Bhutto assassination, and bombings in Pakistan and Algeria.

But I want to take the Times’ point more seriously, because it is an example (more obvious and outlandish than usual, perhaps) of an increasing strain of intellectual denial when it comes to terrorism.

As I have often said, our approach to terrorism must be balanced. Neither complacency nor hysteria is appropriate in dealing with a global struggle that will be with us for the foreseeable future. The right answer is to acknowledge the threat, manage the risk and make the necessary reasonable and cost-effective investments that we need to secure ourselves and respond if necessary. And averting our eyes from the threat of terrorism will seem very hollow when the abandonment of security leads to tragic losses that cannot be ignored

We certainly debate about what the right balance of security is, but does it make sense to pretend that what we read about doesn’t exist? When facts become uncomfortable or upsetting, should we ignore them? On the Times’ theory, we should also not discuss preparing for pandemic flu or major catastrophes.

The anxiety caused by a 21st century in which technology has given terrorists and militants unprecedented destructive capabilities is very real. The constructive approach to that anxiety however, is not to wish it away or pretend that it doesn’t exist. The correct approach is to confront the danger, be transparent about the facts, and build real capabilities that assure us that we have maximized our chances of averting or minimizing harm. These are the kinds of behaviors that calm--rather than promote--anxiety.

Ignoring the danger leads neither to bliss nor tranquility. Rather, we should recognize that in a world where man-made and natural hazards exist, the most constructive outlet of anxiety is to motivate solid, intelligent, and balanced preparation.

Michael Chertoff

Building an Effective Bio-Defense Capability

Over the next year, members of our Department will be increasingly talking about the need for Americans to resist complacency in the face of terrorism. There is no question that in some areas of the United States, the sense of urgency to do what is necessary to protect our country from terrorism has begun to wane in the six years since 9/11. Evidence of this can be found in the recent calls to delay new identification requirements to cross our borders; demands to relax current restrictions on liquids in carry-on baggage at our airports; and attempts to put off – or even eliminate – new measures designed to create secure driver’s licenses across our country.

Complacency can be a normal, healthy response to an immense tragedy like 9/11. No one wants to live in a perpetual state of fear or anxiety. But as a nation, it would be irresponsible to pretend the terrorist threat has subsided or that our enemies are no longer interested in waging war on our country. Our job at DHS is to resist complacency. We have not forgotten the need for constant vigilance against the terrorist threat and every day we work diligently to stay ahead of those who would harm us.

One area in particular where we have accelerated our efforts is developing an effective national bio-defense capability to guard against the release of a biological agent that could kill or severely injure tens of thousands to hundred thousands of Americans. Many of these biological agents are not difficult to grow or disseminate over a wide urban area causing thousands of people to become severely ill or potentially die.

Our approach to bio-defense is well defined in Presidential Directives issued by President Bush over the last several years. Our goal is to understand and increase our awareness of such an attack while the perpetrators are still abroad, and thereby prevent an attack from happening. To this end, we have deployed detection systems that monitor the environment for biological agents to provide the early warning necessary to prevent large numbers of causalities and deaths. We are also standing up a robust capability to monitor the status of animal health, human health, food, water, and the environment.

Working closely with the Department of Health and Human Services and other partners, we are creating a nimble and robust response structure to have medicines that can be distributed to people in the event of an attack.

With our colleagues at the Environmental Protection Agency and local environmental health agencies, we must be able to achieve environmental recovery from biological agents that can contaminate cities, buildings, homes, and the environment for years.

These are all complex challenges that require significant planning across all levels of government, multi-year investments in research and technology, and a comprehensive strategy that recognizes the individual needs of cities and states. Moreover, we must set national priorities so that our investments give us a level of national coverage, meet operational needs, and allow us to stay ahead of evolving threats.

We understand that a large-scale biological attack could be far more devastating than even the attacks on 9/11. As that tragedy moves further into the distance, we must remember that our enemy is patient and willing to wait years or decades to strike us when we are most vulnerable. We become more vulnerable as our sense of urgency and vigilance wanes. I can assure you that the committed public servants in our Department will not lose focus as time passes and we will continue to do what is necessary to protect the American people from the full range of threats we face.

Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D.
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer

Fighting Terror: A New Consensus

It’s time to bury the myth of American divergence from the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. Contrary to popular opinion, we are constantly working with our international partners to create a better, safer world.

Late last week I spoke in Dublin, Ireland at the Institute of European Affairs and then met in Germany with my security counterparts from six European nations, with the goal of strengthening transatlantic cooperation.

As I stressed in Ireland and in Germany, I remain struck by how remarkably our paths converge.

For starters, most nations, including those of Europe, clearly grasp the danger that terrorism poses to them and to our entire global system of security, safety, and prosperity. They know that Osama Bin Laden, his cohorts, and their ideology have become a major threat to the freedom- loving world. They recall the bombings in Madrid and in the United Kingdom (UK), and the thwarted plot against transatlantic airliners in London last year.

Our paths also converge on three key principles on how best to respond. First, nations are realizing that security begins beyond our own borders and ports of entry. So, we’re stressing the importance of partnerships with other nations. And our allies join us in pursuing a strategy that seeks to manage risk, not to eliminate it, since complete eradication is impossible.

And finally, there’s a growing consensus that information is a critical tool for applying these principles in an effective, risk-based way. By collecting only a few pieces of key commercial information, we can zero in on the handful of potentially dangerous individuals, without violating privacy rights or harming commerce by inconveniencing the vast throngs of legitimate travelers.

Through using personal name record (PNR) data, we can identify previously unknown individuals who are dangerous. In cases where we have no travel data, we will be using our new 10-point fingerprint program to match visitors’ prints against latent prints we’re collecting from battle fields, safe houses, and terrorist training camps abroad. And to guard against dangerous operatives masquerading as innocent visitors, we are creating secure identification through our Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

Other countries now have adopted strikingly similar approaches. Earlier this month, the European Union released a proposed requirement for its member states that mirrors our own rules for PNR data usage in border management processes. The UK has embarked on a seven-year eBorders program. Ireland will roll out a similar program to secure its common travel area with the UK. The Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, the UK, and Malaysia have expedited entry and/or registered travel programs enabling pre-approved travelers to move quickly through passport control. Australia has long had an Electronic Travel Authorization program to facilitate travel while mitigating risks associated with visa-free travel. Japan has begun recording the fingerprints and photos of all foreign visitors.

When it comes to security, no two nations can ever be exactly alike, but clearly convergence is accelerating. Together with our international partners, we are working hard to enhance security, here and across the globe.

Michael Chertoff

The Battle for Our Future

Earlier today, I had the honor and privilege of speaking at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, the site for one of the greatest speeches of modern times, Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” address.

Delivered in 1946, Churchill’s speech eloquently outlined Soviet communism’s threat to the free world and called for firm and principled resistance. Like his warning a decade earlier about Nazi Germany, his words that day were roundly criticized. On both sides of the Atlantic, Britain’s greatest statesman was called a fear-monger for his efforts.

A half century later, in 1996, the words of Margaret Thatcher, another great former British prime minister, were also unheeded after she had come to Westminster and warned of the rise of Islamic radicalism.

But as I mentioned today, time has vindicated them both.

Appeasing Nazi Germany in the 1930s led to World War II. Containing the Soviet Union following the Second World War led to its downfall. Downplaying the threat posed by Bin Laden a decade ago led to the horrific 9/11 attacks.

Incredibly, we face exactly the kind of complacency in our post-9/11 world that Churchill and Thatcher confronted in decades past.

As I said today, too many members of our “thinking” classes deny or downplay the fact that war has been declared against us by an ideology that is as ruthless and fanatical as that of Nazism or communism. Spread by a network of cult-like entities that span the globe, this ideology denies the dignity and humanity of its opponents, and sanctifies the slaughter of innocent people, especially mainstream Muslims, for rejecting its hateful and bigoted message.

Members of Al Qaeda and their fellow travelers seek not only revolution in their own countries, but domination of many countries. Beginning in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, they seek control over actual territory where they can train, assemble advanced weaponry, impose repressive law, and plan further attacks against our nation and its allies.

How have we responded? Under President Bush’s leadership, we’ve destroyed Al Qaeda’s Afghan headquarters, deployed our intelligence assets globally, captured or killed terrorists on nearly every continent, partnered with allies on information sharing and intelligence, and adapted to the evolving threats we continue to face here and abroad.

By responding in strength, we’ve applied Winston Churchill’s words at Westminster to our enemies today. As Churchill said of the communists, “There is nothing they admire so much as strength and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness.” Whether it’s Hitler or Stalin, Bin Laden or Iranian President Ahmadinejad—for ideological fanatics, weakness is provocative.

Were Churchill alive today, he would encourage us to maintain our resolve, preventing our enemies from launching further attacks, gaining control of nation states, and obtaining weapons of mass destruction. He would tell us that we must have a clear vision of the threat, not one colored by wishful thinking.

I’m also certain that Churchill would recognize that ours is ultimately a battle of ideas, a clash between the forces of reason and modernity and those of medieval fanaticism. Through the liberation and exercise of reason, we’ve witnessed wondrous things – the conquest of ancient diseases, the freeing of legions of people from poverty and starvation, and the unleashing of the information age. Ours is not a struggle against religion, for there is no necessary contradiction between reason and faith. Indeed, reason is God’s gift to humanity.

This is a battle that we must win, and one that calls on all of us to be engaged.

Michael Chertoff